- 164
- 16
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I will ask again, because you keep evading the main question when I include literally anything besides the main question in my responses
Do you have any specific, falsifiable beliefs about the provenance of those 4.8 million names and the fate of the people those names referred to?
A specific, falsifiable belief might be something like "those names mostly did not belong to real people" or "most of the people who were listed as murdered were actually resettled in Siberia, where they lived long and happy lives" or "they mostly died in the ghettoes and in transit due to disease and starvation, but I don't count that as murder".
After you have answered that question, feel free to ask your above questions again.
My falsifiable claim is that there is no evidence those 4.8 million people were murdered by the Germans during the war. The database is a collection of names and documents with no evidence, investigation, or verification of murder. This is not a legitimate database of murder victims, as any database of murder victims would require some sort of investigation and verification that the entries are people who were actually murdered.
If you are claiming they were murdered, you should demonstrate evidence that they were murdered. An example would be your claim that 70,000 Jews were sent from Lodz to Auschwitz in 1944 to be exterminated. That's an example of an actual accusation of murder we can investigate. Revisionists have investigated that claim and, using contemporaneous documents, shown that claim you be false. You haven't even tried to defend that claim since you initially cited it, so you've fallen back to "look here's a name, DOB, and passport application- this person was murdered!"
People should be extremely suspicious upon learning that there are known locations where the remains of up to a million Jews are said to be buried, but nobody has had the motive to actually excavate those alleged mass graves- despite the obvious propaganda motive that ought to exist but seems to be outweighed by other concerns. So people like you are reduced to pointing at a bunch of names in a database with no commensurate evidence that they were murdered.
Revisionists are the ones who actually want to investigate the scene of the crime. Yad Vashem wants to scan a passport application and add it to their database so the faithful have something they can point to when they claim 6 million were murdered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link